Brandel compliments Tiger in the way a man will say nice things about someone before ripping them a new one so they can say they are "fair" and point to the evidence.-Dislike or like is a dumb word for this conversation-As good as Tiger is, Brandel is overwhelmingly negative towards him, his decisions, his play, his swing, etc. HE throws in the occasional compliment just to say he's objective.

Brandel compliments Tiger in the way a man will say nice things about someone before ripping them a new one so they can say they are "fair" and point to the evidence.-Dislike or like is a dumb word for this conversation-As good as Tiger is, Brandel is overwhelmingly negative towards him, his decisions, his play, his swing, etc. HE throws in the occasional compliment just to say he's objective.

I don't agree. I think Brandel talks a lot about Tiger because he is of interest to the readers/viewers and Brandel is paid for being interesting and even provocative at times. 37 pages on this forum about the article will attest to the fact that Tiger draws a lot interest. Does anyone out there think we would get 37 pages if it was the golfer who was involved was 100th on the money list? I doubt that even if it was another well know golfer it would have garnered this much comment (maybe Phil but I doubt it).

To me Tiger seems to me to want it both ways. He wants to be the very best and noteworthy and make loads of $, but he also doesn't want us to know anything about him except his public image as defined by him and/or his organization. That doesn't make him unique, most celebrities are that way. Well it just doesn't work that way for any celebrity which is what Tiger is due to his golfing skills. His somewhat abrasive personality doesn't help him much either. If you "move the needle" as much as Tiger does you can expect special scrutiny in the way you conduct yourself and you can expect some negative comments at times. IMO, as our 33rd President once said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen".

I don't agree. I think Brandel talks a lot about Tiger because he is of interest to the readers/viewers and Brandel is paid for being interesting and even provocative at times. 37 pages on this forum about the article will attest to the fact that Tiger draws a lot interest. Does anyone out there think we would get 37 pages if it was the golfer who was involved was 100th on the money list? I doubt that even if it was another well know golfer it would have garnered this much comment (maybe Phil but I doubt it).

To me Tiger seems to me to want it both ways. He wants to be the very best and noteworthy and make loads of $, but he also doesn't want us to know anything about him except his public image as defined by him and/or his organization. That doesn't make him unique, most celebrities are that way. Well it just doesn't work that way for any celebrity which is what Tiger is due to his golfing skills. His somewhat abrasive personality doesn't help him much either. If you "move the needle" as much as Tiger does you can expect special scrutiny in the way you conduct yourself and you can expect some negative comments at times. IMO, as our 33rd President once said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen".

You say you disagree, but none of your explanation refers to my comment. Brandel is critical (many would say excessively) of tiger. The "why" of it is irrelevant, as is tigers ability to "take it."

Brandel is negative towards Tiger because no one would talk about articles where BC is positive towards Tiger. Miceli and BC have made careers out of bashing Tiger just like Rush Limbaugh has made his career out of bashing democrats.

You say you disagree, but none of your explanation refers to my comment. Brandel is critical (many would say excessively) of tiger. The "why" of it is irrelevant, as is tigers ability to "take it."

You said he was negative about Tiger. I think he is just picking the golfer of most interest and writing/speaking about him. I have heard him say a lot of positive things about Tiger but for some reason most seem to think he isn't sincere about that but is sincere about his criticisms. Go figure. I have already said he was over the line in the article of interest on this thread so I'm not defending that.

I just will never understand why you assume that he "dislikes" Tiger because he is critical of his approach. It is his job to analyze what he sees on the PGA Tour. Tiger is the biggest draw on the PGA Tour, hence he gets the most attention, including by Chamblee. Chamblee has constantly stated that he thinks Tiger is the best player who ever teed it up, and he just thinks that he should have stayed with the swings that gave him his biggest runs of success. I see nothing wrong or hateful about that, it is his opinion, and I don't see why it means that he "dislikes" him. It is always about Tiger and rightly so, so Chamblee (and everybody else) happens to focus on Tiger and his world more than anything else (read: ratings).

I believe that the reason he is currently being critical about the rules violations is because he is disappointed in the World #1 player's approach to what happened at the BMW. Chamblee made a huge mistake with the way he presented it, and has said as much, but I give him credit for not walking back his points because of the pressure from the Tiger camp. He thinks it was dubious and, if so, it is his job to say as much.

JMO.

One of the best posts I read in this thread. Granted I don't see much of BC but when I do he is normally either praising woods or it was after one of his poor rounds that knocked him out of contention so not much praise to go on there.

You dont watch much Golf Channel then-He is 2x or 3x negative for every positive. Railed against Tigers swing again the day before he shoots 63 in Turkey.-Just silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lenman73

One of the best posts I read in this thread. Granted I don't see much of BC but when I do he is normally either praising woods or it was after one of his poor rounds that knocked him out of contention so not much praise to go on there.

I just will never understand why you assume that he "dislikes" Tiger because he is critical of his approach. It is his job to analyze what he sees on the PGA Tour. Tiger is the biggest draw on the PGA Tour, hence he gets the most attention, including by Chamblee. Chamblee has constantly stated that he thinks Tiger is the best player who ever teed it up, and he just thinks that he should have stayed with the swings that gave him his biggest runs of success. I see nothing wrong or hateful about that, it is his opinion, and I don't see why it means that he "dislikes" him. It is always about Tiger and rightly so, so Chamblee (and everybody else) happens to focus on Tiger and his world more than anything else (read: ratings).

I believe that the reason he is currently being critical about the rules violations is because he is disappointed in the World #1 player's approach to what happened at the BMW. Chamblee made a huge mistake with the way he presented it, and has said as much, but I give him credit for not walking back his points because of the pressure from the Tiger camp. He thinks it was dubious and, if so, it is his job to say as much.

JMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lenman73

One of the best posts I read in this thread. Granted I don't see much of BC but when I do he is normally either praising woods or it was after one of his poor rounds that knocked him out of contention so not much praise to go on there.

I agree with above assessment, BC just being BC and doing his job, and for those of you that are critical of him, thinks he's way off base, out of line, TGC should fire him because of the article, BC knows nothing about golf and on. And on and on.

Well explain to me this then, what about the As, Bs and C's he gave other players? Were those assessments way off base too?The article wasn't a Tiger woods report exclusive. Was BC off his rocker, was he way off base, what does he know. Some of you slurpers are critical of just one small portion of the article and yet condemn BC of everything he writes or comments about from when he was born & likely to the day he dies.

Take a deep breath and realize that BC wrote an article & commented that in some circles a very small portion of it was less than flattering of Mr Woods. He also praised his accomplishments for the year. Here was my take on it since day one.......BFD! Based on BC reasoning behind it, his not necessarily mine, he was right to share an opinion- but don't condemn the man doing so....are you ready for canned announcements?..you know the reporting much like the flat-line boring, non informational broadcast of a Tiger Woods press conference, brought to you cialis, coca cola and John Hancock.

Be careful what you wish for. I would much rather have character and opinion than some form of boring BS

I believe that the reason he is currently being critical about the rules violations is because he is disappointed in the World #1 player's approach to what happened at the BMW. Chamblee made a huge mistake with the way he presented it, and has said as much, but I give him credit for not walking back his points because of the pressure from the Tiger camp. He thinks it was dubious and, if so, it is his job to say as much.

JMO.
I agree with above assessment, BC just being BC and doing his job, and for those of you that are critical of him, thinks he's way off base, out of line, TGC should fire him because of the article, BC knows nothing about golf and on. And on and on.

Well explain to me this then, what about the As, Bs and C's he gave other players? Were those assessments way off base too?The article wasn't a Tiger woods report exclusive. Was BC off his rocker, was he way off base, what does he know. Some of you slurpers are critical of just one small portion of the article and yet condemn BC of everything he writes or comments about from when he was born & likely to the day he dies.

Take a deep breath and realize that BC wrote an article & commented that in some circles a very small portion of it was less than flattering of Mr Woods. He also praised his accomplishments for the year. Here was my take on it since day one.......BFD! Based on BC reasoning behind it, his not necessarily mine, he was right to share an opinion- but don't condemn the man doing so....are you ready for canned announcements?..you know the reporting much like the flat-line boring, non informational broadcast of a Tiger Woods press conference, brought to you cialis, coca cola and John Hancock.

Be careful what you wish for. I would much rather have character and opinion than some form of boring BS

Really? Calling him a cheater is "less than flattering"? And if you bury a charge of being a cheater in a long article somehow that lessens its seriousness because it is just a small part of the article?

Really? Calling him a cheater is "less than flattering"? And if you bury a charge of being a cheater in a long article somehow that lessens its seriousness because it is just a small part of the article?

You are doing precisely what I wrote about, responding to only one small part of the article and now you are doing it again with my response here.

Once again you are missing the entire point, he calling him a cheater BASED on HIS reasoning, its his opinion, both of which he is entitled he is entitled to it. OK? his reasoning, his opinion and based on his reasoning ( right or wrong) with that said, heck I agree with him. And I also agree of his praise to Tiger and the other players.

Now if Tim Finchem declared him a cheater this is an entirely different conversation and story. That would be a " charge"

BC is a beat writer if you will, he holds no power outside of his key board and monitor. Thank you for your interest, no other response is needed.

Really? Calling him a cheater is "less than flattering"? And if you bury a charge of being a cheater in a long article somehow that lessens its seriousness because it is just a small part of the article?

You are doing precisely what I wrote about, responding to only one small part of the article and now you are doing it again with my response here.

Once again you are missing the entire point, he calling him a cheater BASED on HIS reasoning, its his opinion, both of which he is entitled he is entitled to it. OK? his reasoning, his opinion and based on his reasoning ( right or wrong) with that said, heck I agree with him. And I also agree of his praise to Tiger and the other players.

Now if Tim Finchem declared him a cheater this is an entirely different conversation and story. That would be a " charge"

BC is a beat writer if you will, he holds no power outside of his key board and monitor. Thank you for your interest, no other response is needed.

So... you've never heard of the "power of the press"? It's only one of the most powerful influences affecting the way that the average person forms his ideas about the world. As such, it carries more weight in the public sector than Finchem, who most people outside of golf have never even heard of.

So... you've never heard of the "power of the press"? It's only one of the most powerful influences affecting the way that the average person forms his ideas about the world. As such, it carries more weight in the public sector than Finchem, who most people outside of golf have never even heard of.

Have you ever heard of an editorial??? Because that's what it was, it was his opinion, do get that? There is a clear difference between FACT and OPINION? You can not debate opinion, you can only debate fact.

Chamblee's entire editorial was based on his own opinion this statement is fact.

Tim Fnchem or any governing body of any sport speaks volumes over a beat writer- regardless of popularity. His position and authority whe he speaks or makes an official announcement or ruling it is based on Fact, not opinion.

So... you've never heard of the "power of the press"? It's only one of the most powerful influences affecting the way that the average person forms his ideas about the world. As such, it carries more weight in the public sector than Finchem, who most people outside of golf have never even heard of.

Have you ever heard of an editorial??? Because that's what it was, it was his opinion, do get that? There is a clear difference between FACT and OPINION? You can not debate opinion, you can only debate fact.

Chamblee's entire editorial was based on his own opinion this statement is fact.

Tim Fnchem or any governing body of any sport speaks volumes over a beat writer- regardless of popularity. His position and authority whe he speaks or makes an official announcement or ruling it is based on Fact, not opinion.

So it would be okay for one of your local newspaper writers to publish an editorial that basically called you a child molester-Because its just opinion? And the person writing it is just a reporter? The writer could make it clear it was his own opinion-Surely thatd have no damaging effects at all,and youd be the first one to say its his right to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfisher

Have you ever heard of an editorial??? Because that's what it was, it was his opinion, do get that? There is a clear difference between FACT and OPINION? You can not debate opinion, you can only debate fact.

Chamblee's entire editorial was based on his own opinion this statement is fact.

Tim Fnchem or any governing body of any sport speaks volumes over a beat writer- regardless of popularity. His position and authority whe he speaks or makes an official announcement or ruling it is based on Fact, not opinion.

So it would be okay for one of your local newspaper writers to publish an editorial that basically called you a child molester-Because its just opinion? And the person writing it is just a reporter? The writer could make it clear it was his own opinion-Surely thatd have no damaging effects at all,and youd be the first one to say its his right to do that.

No. Assuming that the reporter has absolutely no factual basis for making such a claim, that would be libel.

The difference is that Tiger is a "public figure" at least with respect to golf, so he has to expect to be subjected to reporting, analysis, and commentary about his golf. And there was a factual basis for commenting on Tiger's compliance or noncompliance with the rules, and what that might mean about his intent to follow the rules.

If Spitfisher was a Pop Warner football coach, and some parents found out that he insisted on showering with the kids after each practice, then that might be a different story. That would be within the realm of a reporter or journalist sniffing out a story, gathering some facts, and presenting (at least one) option about what the facts might mean. That's what journalists do. They don't pull a name out of the phone book and write completely fictional stories about them for fun, and then publish them as opinion.

Your analogy is trolling, BTW. I should only hope that you understand the difference between what Brandel did and the example you gave.